Talk:Shubal Stearns

Tone

Excessive glorification. Wikipedia sticks to neutral tone. `'Míkka>t 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If you can't substantiate this accusation with some concrete evidence, it remains your personal, subjective, POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look at other wikipedia articles. You cannot throw around statements like "profound impact on much of population". Please see the guideline WP:PEACOCK. - 7-bubёn >t 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally you respond! But that is intended as a factual statement. Stearns' preaching had a profound impact in much of the population; were it not for him, the Baptist faith would not be the largest church in the Southern United States to this day. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now changed the word "remarkably" since this word can be construed as a subjective pov, but I stand by the factuality of the remainder of the article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comments

Note that there has been a link, visible by clicking "show" in the above under "Assessment comments", to the page Talk:Shubal Stearns/Comments (still a redlink as of yet) for use of the Christianity wikiproject. I just wanted to put the link out here where more people could see it. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Please don't remove tags until the indicated problems are resolved. - 7-bubёn >t 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

SemBubenny, the only problem you have indicated is that you don't like the factual statement that the had a "profound impact" on Christianity in the Southern US. Since he undeniably did have a profound impact, as anyone familiar with the subject can aver, and since you you are hardly taking part in any discussion here other than to drive-by every six months or so, I'm removing the inappropriate tags. Please stick to subjects in which you have expertise, or have done a modicum of research on, and refrain from using wikipedia as a battleground or simply for provoking other editors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please follow to wikipedia rules: (1) provide references to text whenever required, (2) write articles in neutral tone (3) don't inslt other wikipedians. (4) wikipedia is ancyclopedia which anybody can edit. - 7-bubёn >t 16:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

One more revert, and I am reporting you to admins for dealing with your inappropriate behavior. - 7-bubёn >t 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do. Where do you derive your supposed authority over me from? It is clear that you are merely a provocateur who enjoys quarreling and fomenting disputes. You have not explained these tags, have not responded to my request for explanation, thus they will be removed until you explainm specifically what you think the problem is so it can be rectified if there is one. It's kind of hard to fix the problem if you refuse to explain it, and you seem to know nothing at all about Shubal Stearns. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do I refer to my authority over you? I refer to the authority of wikipedia rules. The tags are self-explanatory: (1) there is not a single inline citation in the article. (2) excessive glorification is not in the style of wikipedia, please read WP:PEACOCK. - 7-bubёn >t 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that there is any excessive glorification, and the onus is on you to show that there is any. Thus far, you have utterly failed to do so. If you are not willing to specifically discuss the facts of the article, or if you know nothing about the subject, your presence here is merely disruptive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, you are a person with a certain predisposition to the subject of the article, therefore you are closing blind eye to such things as: "remarkably successful ministry is inextricably intertwined", "profound impact in planting the seeds", "His style of preaching became the model for many other preachers", "this 'outpouring' swiftly became a flood that spread from Sandy Creek throughout all parts of the southern frontier." This is not what is called "neutral tone". Instead of butchering and article about a person obviously respected by some, I merely indicated the problems, so that people who know the subject may fix them in a respectful way, your choice was a crusade of character assassination in the worst traditions of religious intolerance. - 7-bubёn >t 17:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When you place a tag, you are expected to explain what your specific concerns are. Anybody can tag any article, but if you refuse to explain, you shouldn't be surprised that it is removed. You have now finally listed some of your specific concerns, but I still think you are really here just to provoke conflict for kicks, since nobody else seems to share your POV about these factual statements, and you appear not to have done your homework. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please leave your opinions about me to yourself. Failure to follow basic wikipedia rules cannot be fixed with aggressive attitude. Tomorrow I will start deleting unreferenced opinions from the article, since you seem to have no desire to put the text into compliance with wikipedia rules and prefer attacking me. - 7-bubёn >t 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You said I engaged in "a crusade of character assassination in the worst traditions of religious intolerance". Intolerance? Oh - you mean like how I threatened to report you to ANI, and then did so? Oh no wait a minute, that was you who threatened to report me and then did so. Eye. Speck. Beam. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I strongly suggest you obtain some consensus from other users, before unilaterally hacking up an article about someone you obviously know very little about. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretations of how wikipedia works. No amount of consensus can supersede the basic wikipedia policies, see wikipedia:Consensus. - 7-bubёn >t 18:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

But your say-so alone is not good enough. I can't go to any perfectly good article, say Sun, stick whatever tags I want on it, say "peacock", and demand they be addressed just because I say so. It would take other editors who concur that there is a problem with that article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Complete chronology of problem on this article

• 22 January 2008 - Sembubenny dumps a "cleanup tone" tag on article without explanation.
• 23 January 2008 - I remove tag because it promises "Specific concerns may be found on talk page", but none are.
• 14 July 2008 (6 months later) - Sembubenny reverts me, and offers a two word explanation above: "Excessive glorification".
• 15 July 2008 - I remove the tag again, because there are still no "specific concerns" that can be addresed
• 17 February 2009 (7 months later) - Sembubenny again dumps the tag along with two others, with nary a word of explanation. I again remove them.
• 10 March 2009 (1 month later) - Sembubenny once again restores the tags, mentioning only one "specific concern" : the assertion that Stearns had a "profound impact". I respond to his long-awaited explanation by pointing out that Stearns did indeed have a profound impact (see above).
• 23 March 2009 - after waiting in vain for any reply, I again remove the tags. Sembubenny reverts and responds by threatening to "report" my "inappropriate behaviour". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the article (per ANI)

While I don't know enough about the topic to know whether there's any "excessive glorification" here, the issue of uncited statements seems pretty clear.

Para 2; each of these statements are unsupported (though, of course, they don't need separate citation...we tend to prefer relatively low levels of citation, so if a single citation supports the entire paragraph, it could be used a single time at the end of the para

• Stearns' family were members of the Congregational church in Tolland, Connecticut,
• when in 1745 he heard evangelist George Whitefield.
• Whitefield preached that instead of trying to reform the Congregational church over doctrinal issues, it was necessary to separate from it;
• hence
• his followers were called the "New-Lights".
• Stearns was converted, became a preacher,
• and adopted the Great Awakening's view of revival and conversion.
• The "New Lights" also came to be called the "Separates",
• in part because they pointed to 2 Cor. 6:17 "be ye separate",
• ie, from the mainstream "Old Light" Congregational church.

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 similarly lack supporting citations. And it's hard to tell which statements are supported by citations. (For example, does ref 2 in para 5 support the three prior sentences, or just the 16 - 606 number?)

Problems of tone:

• first sentence: "profound impact"; profundity is an opinion not a factual statement, and it should be clearly attributed.
• first sentence: "planting the seeds for the spiritual direction"; this isn't encyclopaedic language, and "spiritual direction" presents as opinion as if it were a fact. Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What opinion? Stearns' efforts resulted in the predominant influence that the Baptist Churches enjoy in the US "Bible Belt" to this day, which has had a major effect on the national character, politics, and even wider resonance. This is undeniably so, even if some wish it were otherwise. If you do the research and try to figure out an answer to the question "So where did the Bible Belt come from, anyway?" you will eventually be led back to this man. I don't know of any other way to express this historic fact. He sowed the seeds for the spiritual direction, yes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Spiritual direction" is an loaded term. It's laden with assumptions and value judgements linked to one's world view. Using the term "planting the seeds for the spiritual direction" or no more neutral than "laid the foundation for their descent into superstition". Both are POV expressions of something along the lines of "laid the groundwork for a particular religious approach". Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• second sentence: "Stearns' highly successful ministry"; the "success" of his ministry is an opinion (which needs to be attributed). "Highly" successful is rather peacocky.
• Para 4, sentence 2: "Stearns and Marshal preached the Gospel with great zeal"; "the Gospel" is an obscure (and somewhat POV) reference. "With great zeal" is an opinion, and needs to be credited.
• Para 4, sentence 2: "were even accused of being "disorderly ministers" by some stalwarts"; the term "stalwarts" isn't meaningful, and it isn't specific enough. Who are these people? Is "stalwart" an NPOV decription? "Stalwart" whats? Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The term stalwarts is meaningful and neutral; the meaning may be found in a dictionary. It describes those who were loyal to the established Church of England at the time, as opposed to "Non-conformists" "dissenters" etc. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The OED lists three meanings for the noun "stalwart". None of them say anything about loyalty to the Church of England. There's nothing to indicate what you're talking about. In addition, there are problems with any of the definitions offered by the OED

1. A strong and valiant man.

Calling these people "strong and valiant men" puts Stearns in rather a bad light. Is that really NPOV?

2. A sturdy uncompromising partisan; esp. as a political designation.

Calling these people "uncompromising partisans" suggests that they are bound by partisanship, not reason. It may be true, but if so, that claim needs to be made explicit.

b. One who is disposed to take an uncompromising position with regard to political, religious, and social questions in general; a ‘doctrinaire’. rare.

This is even harsher. Regardless, calling these people "stalwarts" isn't meaningful because, assuming that you are calling them "uncompromising partisans", your reader would need to have some clue as to the cause for which they are uncompromisingly partisan. "Stalwart" is of questionable neutrality, but more importantly, it's useless because there's no way to know what cause these people are attached to. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Para 5, sentence 3: "Stearns pastored at Sandy Creek"; "pastored at" is regional slang, not the most common way to refer to the action of serving a group as their clergyperson. Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No dictionary I can find describes it as "regional slang". It looks like a perfectly fine English verb. Is there some reference for your assertion? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Err, does anyone use the term in that sense except for evangelicals and fundamentalists in the US? I've never heard it outside of that subculture. What sources do you have that suggest a wider usage? Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Other issues

• Para 2, sentence 3: "adopted the Great Awakening's view of revival and conversion". What are these? It isn't much use to the reader to refer to "the Great Awakening's view of revival and conversion" and neither explain what they are, or link to an article that explains what these views are.
• Para 3, sentence 2: "Soon, Stearns rejected infant baptism"; "soon" isn't meaningful in this context...does it mean days, weeks, months...?
• "who complained to the Philadelphia Association"; if you follow the link, it leads to an article about a 20th century charity in the UK. Obviously this isn't what the article is talking about. So what is "the Philadelphia Association"? The article needs to explain what this is, why the "stalwarts" would complain to them, and how they would be in a position to "dismiss" charges.
• Para 5, sentence 5: "The church quickly grew from 16 members to 606"; this is confusing. Sentence 2 says it started with 8 men and their wives in 1755. Stearns serves as their pastor until he dies (which, according to the article is 1771). From there (presumably after his death?) they spread to the rest of the South, and grow from 16 members to 606 members. So they went from "8 men and their wives" in 1755 to 16 members in 1771, and then "quickly grew"? What drove this growth after 16 years of stasis? And what does "quickly" mean in this context? Years? Decades? Or is the mention of Stearns' death out of order? Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to presume "from there" refers to after his death. It means, literally, "From there", ie from Sandy Creek, NC. The original 16 members who moved there in 1755 were 8 men and their wives (8 times 2). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The article talks about his death. Then it talks about the spread of the group. Normally when you read that A happened, and then you read that B happened, you take it to mean that A happened, then B happened. If you don't mean that, then you have to make it clear that you don't mean that. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Para 6, sentence 1: "The Sandy Creek Association was formed in 1758"; what is this?
• Para 6, sentence 2: this sentence contradicts the statement that the church stayed at 16 members for the rest of Stearns' life.

You're misreading it; no such statement is made. The church grew from 16 to 606 members over the course of Stearns' ministry, as a proper reading of the article indicates. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said above - if you put evens in sequence, the reader should assume chronological sequence, unless told otherwise. It's fine in Slaughterhouse 5 or Catch-22, but not in an encyclopaedia article. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Para 6, sentence 3: "Based on the testimony of those who remembered him, Edwards described Stearns"; this is ambiguous - people who remembered Stearns, or people who remembered Edwards? Assuming it's the former, does Edwards describe Stearns, or does he report how others described him? Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what it says - Edwards describes Stearns, based on the testimony of those who remembered him (Stearns). Since it makes no sense at all to read "him" as Edwards, it's perfectly normal English to use a pronoun here without fear of ambiguity. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's now "exactly what it says". The "him" is ambiguous in that sentence. It may be common to use "him" ambiguously, but it's not appropriate to use "him" ambiguously in an encyclopaedia article. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Para 7, sentence 1: "None of Stearns' sermons has survived in writing, but a central theme seems to have been"; what's the basis for this? Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The references, which can be found in the "References" section of the article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Which references? At the time I supplied my feedback there four references. None of which were cited in support of that statement. Your new reference does make this statement, but it's not a factual statement, it's a conclusion. It's not your conclusion. So the person whose conclusion it is needs to be credited, otherwise it could be construed as plagiarism. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you say that "according to Nettles..."?

• Para 7, sentence 1: "which at first seemed strange to churchgoers in North Carolina who never thought of their religion as anything more than external"; it seems strange to make observations about how this "seemed" to people who lived a quarter millenium ago, or to speculate about their thoughts. This isn't "common knowledge; it's someone's conclusion, based (presumably) on analysis of original sources. This needs to be credited to someone.

Obviously this isn't an in-depth analysis - there just aren't enough sources in the article to do something like that. But there's also enough here that specific tagging isn't necessary. Opinions are presented as facts, and the authors of the opinions aren't credited. The tone is peacock-y, and almost nothing is cited. And in many places there's a serious lack of context. But there's enough here that arguing with SBB about "which problems" seems a bit odd. Guettarda (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you find out more about the subject before you attempt to dispute that his ministry was "highly successful". If you can find any source saying his ministry was not successful, you may be able to demonstrate some difference of opinion among scholars here. Otherwise, it's just the uncited assertion / pov of wikipedians who as usual don't know the subject from a hole in the ground. Everything I have been able to research so far strongly indicates that his ministry was highly successful, ie he made lots of converts, and his denomination which had previously been unheard of in the south, grew rapidly to the point that the majority of southerners even now are members of it, even if most of them have never heard of Stearns. This success is not an "opinion" nor "peacock", it is a fact. It seems like you have singled this article out for exceptionally rigourous treatment, since many other articles are allowed to use the word "success" -- but I have no desire to collaborate with people who aren't even willing to crack open a book on the subject before they sit in their armchairs and nitpick. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop taking this so personally. Read what I said. I never said that Stearns wasn't successful. Nothing of the sort. What I said was that "highly successful" sounds like peacock phrasing. "Successful" may be a conclusion (although it should be the conclusion of your sources, not of you, and you should report it as their conclusion). "Highly successful" sounds like puffery.

It seems like you have singled this article out for exceptionally rigourous treatment, since many other articles are allowed to use the word "success". I never said there was anything wrong with the word "success". And yes, I did single out this article. Per your request: "Be sure to read Talk:Shubal Stearns.". But your assertion that other articles are allowed to use the word "success" fails to make the distinction between the appropriate use of "successful" and the apparent puffery of "highly successful". Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I simply tried to answer your questions above. The hostility in your comments is quite disturbing. You really shouldn't take feedback as a personal attack. And please don't intersperse your comments within other people's signed comments. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever you want with the article, ass hole. You are the expert. I'm leaving wikipedia for good, thanks to people like you being in charge and desperate to see yourself as "teacher" and others as "student" who must learn something from you. The only thing I have learned from you is that you are a major ass hole. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice. But I don't think Til has left for good, even if the account isn't in use. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I missed that charming reply. Guettarda (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)